Anda di halaman 1dari 10

THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL CULTURE AND ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY ON MANAGERIAL WORK VALUES: A STUDY OF THE UNITED STATES, RUSSIA, JAPAN AND CHINA

Presented By:

Imaduddin Siddiqui (9978)

Sadia Abdul Jabbar (10119) Syed Wajahat Ali (9718)

Zarmeen Karimi (10202)

THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL CULTURE AND ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY ON MANAGERIAL WORK VALUES: A STUDY OF THE

Presented To:

Dr.Kashif Mehmood

THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL CULTURE AND ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY ON MANAGERIAL WORK VALUES: A STUDY OF THE
THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL CULTURE AND ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY ON MANAGERIAL WORK VALUES: A STUDY OF THE

Introduction

The impact of economic ideology and national culture

on the individual work values of managers in the U.S,

Russia, Japan and China.

The Convergence-Divergence-Crossvergence (CDC) framework as a theoretical framework.

Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) to operationalize investigation across four countries.

Findings largely support the crossvergence perspective.

Feasibility of multidomestic / global strategies for a corporate culture.

Problem

Author addresses the global organization issue by discussing the forces that can influence individual

(managerial) work values: national culture and economic ideology.

Then introducing the convergence-divergence- crossvergence (CDC) framework as the theoretical foundation that is used to explore these relationships.

Economic Ideology and National Culture

Two major economic ideologies:

  • a. Capitalism

    • b. Socialism

Two national cultures:

  • a. Collectivism

    • b. Individualism

Matrix

Matrix

A Theoretical Framework for the

Formation of Individual Work Values

Convergence versus Divergence

Crossvergence as an Integrative Alternative

Matrix

Matrix

Research Method

The sample consisted of 855 managers from four countries: the United States (n=223); Russia (n=197);

Japan (n=210); China (n=225).

Measure:

The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS):

  • I. SVS sub dimensions

II. SVS higher-order dimensional continua

Solution

Individualism-collectivism (U.S, Russia, China, Japan) Openness-to-change-conservation (U.S, Russia, Japan, China) Self-enhancement-self-transcendence (U.S, Russia, Japan, China) Sub dimensions:

  • a) Power (U.S, Russia, China, Japan)

  • b) Achievement (U.S, China, Japan, Russia)

  • c) Hedonism (U.S, Japan, Russia, China)

  • d) Stimulation (U.S, China, Japan, Russia)

  • e) Self-direction (U.S, Russia, Japan, China)

  • f) Universalism (Japan, U.S, China, Russia)

  • g) Benevolence (China, U.S, Russia, Japan)

  • h) Tradition (China, Japan, U.S, Russia)

  • i) Conformity (China, Japan, U.S, Russia)

  • j) Security (China, U.S, Japan, Russia)

Conclusion

Findings are encouraging for a global form of organization by substantially supporting crossvergence

with culture-dominant, suggest that the global corporate culture concept may be viable in the long term. But not in short term due to differences in sub

dimensional level.